If you go back and look at my post where I first bring up editing JPEGs in Aperture, you'll see that I was using Aperture as something that breaks the long-held truism in Photoshop: Never work with JPEGs. Always convert them to PSD or TIFF, because each time you re-save the image as a JPEG you are degrading the image.
This a workflow that anyone who knows Photoshop knows not to do:
1. Open JPEG.
2. Make change (e.g. contrast, channels, whatever).
3. Save & close file.
4. Change mind.
5. Open JPEG.
6. Make new change.
7. Save & close file.
Every time you save the JPEG in Photoshop you degrade it. (Unless you backed up the original JPEG, you have lost the "digital negative" after even the very first Save.)
That workflow is perfectly fine in Aperture (as long as you think JPEGs are OK). The JPEG is treated as a digital negative. No changes are made to it no matter how many times you make corrections. Only when you export it out of Aperture does it get modified.
So if you change your mind, just edit it again in Aperture and export it out again--you get a fresh copy with none of the degradation from the first time you exported it.
Purty nice!
I agree with you on this.
I'm only saying that if the file is saved (exported) to another program such as inDesign or Quark. as a JPEG, the same problem still occurs no matter which program was used to edit it. The final save (export) should never be made as a JPEG. That's all.
I'm only saying that if the file is saved (exported) to another program such as inDesign or Quark. as a JPEG, the same problem still occurs no matter which program was used to edit it. The final save (export) should never be made as a JPEG. That's all.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intermediate saves. That was always a no-no in Photoshop.
Intermediate saves are not a no-no in Aperture--because they're not destructive.
For some reason, you beat around the bush and refuse to acknowledge this point.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intermediate saves. That was always a no-no in Photoshop.
Intermediate saves are not a no-no in Aperture--because they're not destructive.
For some reason, you beat around the bush and refuse to acknowledge this point.
Are you running for political office?
What is wrong with you? Can't you read something and understand what is being said?
I said "I agree with you on this."
I said that when the file is within the program, you are right. Is that difficult to understand? Because you seem to miss most of a post if the post agrees with you, and burrow down to a point in the post that is saying something that you don't want to acknowledge.
I doubt if anyone else could have missed what I said.
One last time. When you export the jpeg as a jpeg there will be losses.
When you are in Aperture there might not be, if Aperture handles jpeg's the way it handles RAW files.
That's really pretty clear.
And since you don't know how Aperture handles jpegs within the program you can't say if it's true or not at this time.
I never beat around the bush. I say exactly what the situation is. You just don't want to understand what I'm saying.
One is that video is every electronic delivery mode of moving images, i.e. movies, TV shows.
This one is up for debate. But strictly speaking uncompressed data is not really considered a video format.
Quote:
Right now, there are three completely different standards in theater digital projectors. Sony and Warner have been negotiating (fighting) about what standard will be used. Right now, Disney is also in the middle of it because of its 3D flick whuch will only work on digital projection.
The reason for this is as in all technology. Several companies want their proprietary system to become standard.
The studios established the Digital Cinema Initiative to settle much of this debate. Sony and Texas Instruments will still battle it out whether Sony's SXRD chips or Texas Instruments DLP sensors are better.
Also Sony and Warner Bros are battling over Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Avid for the Mac is using Core Image
Quote:
Integrated real-time Core Image effects
Avid offers the only professional editing solutions that directly integrate Mac OS X v10.4 Core Image technology for dynamic real-time effects with Noise Industries Factory Tools. You can even use Quartz Compositions, including those you design yourself, as custom real-time AVX filters.
10.4.3 has killed my wife's machine. So I won't be around these parts for a while.
It turns out the 10.4.3 update quite literally killed my wife's machine!
But then she had one of those 2003 iBooks with the logic board problem. I brought it in to an Apple store to be fixed, 3 years and a day after we bought it. Luckily, Apple acquiesed and ignored the 1-day-late problem, and we should be getting a fixed machine in a few days.
Thank you, Apple. (I wonder if they even stock a 3-year-old 800 MHz G3 board?)
So do we know what of the newer dSLR cameras are supported by Aperture yet?
The Nikon d50 and d70s are not supported (or at least arent on Apples list of supported cameras) and who knows if the new Canon 5D and Nikon 200 will be supported and how long it will take to make them that way.
I hope Apple makes this a priority with Aperture as it would be a shame to have a $500 program made for RAW pictures and not be able to use the RAW pics you take with your dSLR.
So do we know what of the newer dSLR cameras are supported by Aperture yet?
The Nikon d50 and d70s are not supported (or at least arent on Apples list of supported cameras) and who knows if the new Canon 5D and Nikon 200 will be supported and how long it will take to make them that way.
I hope Apple makes this a priority with Aperture as it would be a shame to have a $500 program made for RAW pictures and not be able to use the RAW pics you take with your dSLR.
Aperture works with the CR2 format (used by Canon) but does not mention some of the specific cameras which use it, I assume that list is for extended support.
I have a Canon EOS 350D - the same model as the Rebel XT and the Rebel XT has recently been added but there's still no EOS 350D. However as it uses the CR2 format there shouldn't be a problem.
It turns out the 10.4.3 update quite literally killed my wife's machine!
But then she had one of those 2003 iBooks with the logic board problem. I brought it in to an Apple store to be fixed, 3 years and a day after we bought it. Luckily, Apple acquiesed and ignored the 1-day-late problem, and we should be getting a fixed machine in a few days.
Thank you, Apple. (I wonder if they even stock a 3-year-old 800 MHz G3 board?)
They do, they replaced my 700 MHz G3 ibook logic board last July.
Aperture works with the CR2 format (used by Canon) but does not mention some of the specific cameras which use it, I assume that list is for extended support.
I have a Canon EOS 350D - the same model as the Rebel XT and the Rebel XT has recently been added but there's still no EOS 350D. However as it uses the CR2 format there shouldn't be a problem.
An interesting point about Canon's software is that it makes its changes in a seperate file that can be changed later (non-destructively!) for the same image, or, can be applied to ANY other image.
I wonder if Apple got some of their ideas from Canon.
The software also tracks offline image libraries, unlike Aperture.
An interesting point about Canon's software is that it makes its changes in a seperate file that can be changed later (non-destructively!) for the same image, or, can be applied to ANY other image.
Making changes to a copy of the same file is not editing non-destructively. That's what we do in Photoshop all the time(duplicating layers). What Aperture does is on the original file except it's not permanent so you don't have copies cluttering up your hard drive.
I doubt they took that from Canon since that been around in PS for a long time in the form of layer styles. Essencialy every Core Image filter is a layer style it's applied on top and can be modified or deleted at any time. Unlike PS filters from the from the FILTER menu.
Making changes to a copy of the same file is not editing non-destructively. That's what we do in Photoshop all the time(duplicating layers). What Aperture does is on the original file except it's not permanent so you don't have copies cluttering up your hard drive.
I doubt they took that from Canon since that been around in PS for a long time in the form of layer styles. Essencialy every Core Image filter is a layer style it's applied on top and can be modified or deleted at any time. Unlike PS filters from the from the FILTER menu.
You're not listening, are you? Reread what I said. No copies of a file are being made.
A JPEG doesn't reveal the "native image" off the sensor. Only RAW files do that. It's why they are called RAW. A JPEG is a HIGHLY processed lossy representation of the original image file.
Yes a jpeg or any other pic format other than raw (TIFF used to exist) is a dematrixing process. Excepting the foveon, any sensor use the Bayer's matrix technology.
Because basically the sensor have 4 kinds of pixels : two green, one red, one blue. This 4 square pattern is repeted all the way in the sensor. The DSP of the camera, has to interpolate the result of all adjacents photosites in order to know the color of the central photosite. But DSP are doing much more than color interpolation, they are doing some accentuation, level corrections, noise reduction .... and jpeg compression. All these post processing enhance the quality pic, but supress the original information, and let's say detail.
The raw do not do this, it's only the collection of the signal coming from each photosite.
The dematrixing has to be done by the computer, and the dematrixing in itself is destructive.
Photoshop start by a dematrixing, in order to have a pic, and then you work in the pic.
Aperture work on the raw, and the dematrixing and the filters applied are displayed in real time in order to be able to watch them on the screen, but the truth is that aperture really work with the raw, and not by a transformation of the raw like photoshop.
So photoshop is
you take a raw, and obtain a photoshop file (with all the layers you want)
but aperture is
you take a raw and add all the layers you want. The raw is never converted in aperture at the difference of photoshop. It's only converted by core image in real time in order to display a pic. That's why this software is so power hungry.
Comments
Originally posted by bikertwin
Well then it's not JPEG anymore, is it?
If you go back and look at my post where I first bring up editing JPEGs in Aperture, you'll see that I was using Aperture as something that breaks the long-held truism in Photoshop: Never work with JPEGs. Always convert them to PSD or TIFF, because each time you re-save the image as a JPEG you are degrading the image.
This a workflow that anyone who knows Photoshop knows not to do:
1. Open JPEG.
2. Make change (e.g. contrast, channels, whatever).
3. Save & close file.
4. Change mind.
5. Open JPEG.
6. Make new change.
7. Save & close file.
Every time you save the JPEG in Photoshop you degrade it. (Unless you backed up the original JPEG, you have lost the "digital negative" after even the very first Save.)
That workflow is perfectly fine in Aperture (as long as you think JPEGs are OK). The JPEG is treated as a digital negative. No changes are made to it no matter how many times you make corrections. Only when you export it out of Aperture does it get modified.
So if you change your mind, just edit it again in Aperture and export it out again--you get a fresh copy with none of the degradation from the first time you exported it.
Purty nice!
I agree with you on this.
I'm only saying that if the file is saved (exported) to another program such as inDesign or Quark. as a JPEG, the same problem still occurs no matter which program was used to edit it. The final save (export) should never be made as a JPEG. That's all.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm only saying that if the file is saved (exported) to another program such as inDesign or Quark. as a JPEG, the same problem still occurs no matter which program was used to edit it. The final save (export) should never be made as a JPEG. That's all.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intermediate saves. That was always a no-no in Photoshop.
Intermediate saves are not a no-no in Aperture--because they're not destructive.
For some reason, you beat around the bush and refuse to acknowledge this point.
Are you running for political office?
Originally posted by bikertwin
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intermediate saves. That was always a no-no in Photoshop.
Intermediate saves are not a no-no in Aperture--because they're not destructive.
For some reason, you beat around the bush and refuse to acknowledge this point.
Are you running for political office?
What is wrong with you? Can't you read something and understand what is being said?
I said "I agree with you on this."
I said that when the file is within the program, you are right. Is that difficult to understand? Because you seem to miss most of a post if the post agrees with you, and burrow down to a point in the post that is saying something that you don't want to acknowledge.
I doubt if anyone else could have missed what I said.
One last time. When you export the jpeg as a jpeg there will be losses.
When you are in Aperture there might not be, if Aperture handles jpeg's the way it handles RAW files.
That's really pretty clear.
And since you don't know how Aperture handles jpegs within the program you can't say if it's true or not at this time.
I never beat around the bush. I say exactly what the situation is. You just don't want to understand what I'm saying.
And so I suppose I can do this too -
Originally posted by melgross
What is wrong with you? Can't you read something and understand what is being said?
I said "I agree with you on this."
...
One last time. When you export the jpeg as a jpeg there will be losses.
When you are in Aperture there might not be
Person 1: "The world is round."
Person 2: "I agree with you that the world might be round."
Huh?
That's not agreement.
Anyway, nice talking to you, but 10.4.3 has killed my wife's machine.
Originally posted by melgross
Oops, meant to add this very good article from the site as well.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-7887-8063
I posted a link to Rob's Oct 30th article on Oct 30th.
Originally posted by sjk
I posted a link to Rob's Oct 30th article on Oct 30th.
Sorry, I didn't remember.
But the truth is, on these threads, if it's two posts back, people won't see it.
One is that video is every electronic delivery mode of moving images, i.e. movies, TV shows.
This one is up for debate. But strictly speaking uncompressed data is not really considered a video format.
Right now, there are three completely different standards in theater digital projectors. Sony and Warner have been negotiating (fighting) about what standard will be used. Right now, Disney is also in the middle of it because of its 3D flick whuch will only work on digital projection.
The reason for this is as in all technology. Several companies want their proprietary system to become standard.
The studios established the Digital Cinema Initiative to settle much of this debate. Sony and Texas Instruments will still battle it out whether Sony's SXRD chips or Texas Instruments DLP sensors are better.
Also Sony and Warner Bros are battling over Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Avid for the Mac is using Core Image
Integrated real-time Core Image effects
Avid offers the only professional editing solutions that directly integrate Mac OS X v10.4 Core Image technology for dynamic real-time effects with Noise Industries Factory Tools. You can even use Quartz Compositions, including those you design yourself, as custom real-time AVX filters.
avid.com/mac
PDN is a pretty respected mag in the photo business here in NYC. We used to advertise in it, and did comp work for them as well.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...005/11/14/1830
Originally posted by bikertwin
10.4.3 has killed my wife's machine.
It turns out the 10.4.3 update quite literally killed my wife's machine!
But then she had one of those 2003 iBooks with the logic board problem. I brought it in to an Apple store to be fixed, 3 years and a day after we bought it. Luckily, Apple acquiesed and ignored the 1-day-late problem, and we should be getting a fixed machine in a few days.
Thank you, Apple.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Avid for the Mac is using Core Image
Via Noise Industry Factory Tools. If we're going to go that far, InDesign also uses CoreImage.
The Nikon d50 and d70s are not supported (or at least arent on Apples list of supported cameras) and who knows if the new Canon 5D and Nikon 200 will be supported and how long it will take to make them that way.
I hope Apple makes this a priority with Aperture as it would be a shame to have a $500 program made for RAW pictures and not be able to use the RAW pics you take with your dSLR.
Originally posted by onlyafterdark
So do we know what of the newer dSLR cameras are supported by Aperture yet?
The Nikon d50 and d70s are not supported (or at least arent on Apples list of supported cameras) and who knows if the new Canon 5D and Nikon 200 will be supported and how long it will take to make them that way.
I hope Apple makes this a priority with Aperture as it would be a shame to have a $500 program made for RAW pictures and not be able to use the RAW pics you take with your dSLR.
Aperture works with the CR2 format (used by Canon) but does not mention some of the specific cameras which use it, I assume that list is for extended support.
I have a Canon EOS 350D - the same model as the Rebel XT and the Rebel XT has recently been added but there's still no EOS 350D. However as it uses the CR2 format there shouldn't be a problem.
Originally posted by bikertwin
It turns out the 10.4.3 update quite literally killed my wife's machine!
But then she had one of those 2003 iBooks with the logic board problem. I brought it in to an Apple store to be fixed, 3 years and a day after we bought it. Luckily, Apple acquiesed and ignored the 1-day-late problem, and we should be getting a fixed machine in a few days.
Thank you, Apple.
They do, they replaced my 700 MHz G3 ibook logic board last July.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Aperture works with the CR2 format (used by Canon) but does not mention some of the specific cameras which use it, I assume that list is for extended support.
I have a Canon EOS 350D - the same model as the Rebel XT and the Rebel XT has recently been added but there's still no EOS 350D. However as it uses the CR2 format there shouldn't be a problem.
An interesting point about Canon's software is that it makes its changes in a seperate file that can be changed later (non-destructively!) for the same image, or, can be applied to ANY other image.
I wonder if Apple got some of their ideas from Canon.
The software also tracks offline image libraries, unlike Aperture.
An interesting point about Canon's software is that it makes its changes in a seperate file that can be changed later (non-destructively!) for the same image, or, can be applied to ANY other image.
Making changes to a copy of the same file is not editing non-destructively. That's what we do in Photoshop all the time(duplicating layers). What Aperture does is on the original file except it's not permanent so you don't have copies cluttering up your hard drive.
I doubt they took that from Canon since that been around in PS for a long time in the form of layer styles. Essencialy every Core Image filter is a layer style it's applied on top and can be modified or deleted at any time. Unlike PS filters from the from the FILTER menu.
Originally posted by krisneph
Making changes to a copy of the same file is not editing non-destructively. That's what we do in Photoshop all the time(duplicating layers). What Aperture does is on the original file except it's not permanent so you don't have copies cluttering up your hard drive.
I doubt they took that from Canon since that been around in PS for a long time in the form of layer styles. Essencialy every Core Image filter is a layer style it's applied on top and can be modified or deleted at any time. Unlike PS filters from the from the FILTER menu.
You're not listening, are you? Reread what I said. No copies of a file are being made.
Originally posted by melgross
A JPEG doesn't reveal the "native image" off the sensor. Only RAW files do that. It's why they are called RAW. A JPEG is a HIGHLY processed lossy representation of the original image file.
Yes a jpeg or any other pic format other than raw (TIFF used to exist) is a dematrixing process. Excepting the foveon, any sensor use the Bayer's matrix technology.
Because basically the sensor have 4 kinds of pixels : two green, one red, one blue. This 4 square pattern is repeted all the way in the sensor. The DSP of the camera, has to interpolate the result of all adjacents photosites in order to know the color of the central photosite. But DSP are doing much more than color interpolation, they are doing some accentuation, level corrections, noise reduction .... and jpeg compression. All these post processing enhance the quality pic, but supress the original information, and let's say detail.
The raw do not do this, it's only the collection of the signal coming from each photosite.
The dematrixing has to be done by the computer, and the dematrixing in itself is destructive.
Photoshop start by a dematrixing, in order to have a pic, and then you work in the pic.
Aperture work on the raw, and the dematrixing and the filters applied are displayed in real time in order to be able to watch them on the screen, but the truth is that aperture really work with the raw, and not by a transformation of the raw like photoshop.
So photoshop is
you take a raw, and obtain a photoshop file (with all the layers you want)
but aperture is
you take a raw and add all the layers you want. The raw is never converted in aperture at the difference of photoshop. It's only converted by core image in real time in order to display a pic. That's why this software is so power hungry.
I hope I have been clear